'wifiiP5' 


yw 


rnrnmmm 


M**  ft*-  h&Z 

iiBUyik  ijftu  ^/.  t Joust*  faftLsae^ia 
Li^t  Ikio  4^gg  t 

^kbaoit  CL  tU 


*^UjiM  VksiIk^l. 

■■M 


THE  FUTURE  OF  PAINTING 


BOOKS  BY  MR.  WRIGHT 


The  Future  of  Painting 
The  Creative  Will 

Modern  Painting:  Its  Tendency  and 
Meaning 

What  Nietzsche  Taught 
Misinforming  a Nation 
Informing  a Nation 
The  Man  of  Promise:  A Novel 
Europe  After  8:15 

The  Great  Modern  French  Stories 
In  Preparation 
Modern  Literature 
The  Mother:  A Novel 


THE 

FUTURE  OF  PAINTING 


BY 

WILLARD  HUNTINGTON  WRIGHT 


B.  W.  HUEBSCH,  Inc.  mcmxxiii 


NEW  YORK 


COPYRIGHT,  I923,  BY 
B.  W.  HUEBSCH,  INC. 


PRINTED  IN  U.  S.  A. 


IN  FRIENDSHIP,  TO 

SAMUEL  T.  HAAS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/futureofpaintingOOwrig 


THE  FUTURE  OF  PAINTING 


THE  FUTURE  OF  PAINTING 


I 

That  a grave  misconception  attaches  to  the  art 
of  modernist  painting  should  be  evident  from  the 
bitter  warfare  which,  for  over  a century,  has 
raged  between  the  advocates  of  the  older  painting 
and  the  exponents  of  the  new.  Never  before  in 
the  history  of  art  has  there  existed  so  violent  and 
prolonged  a controversy  concerning  the  merits 
and  demerits  of  opposing  aesthetic  procedures. 
Practically  the  entire  artistic  world  has  divided 
into  two  hostile  camps,  with  diametrically  op- 
posed doctrines  and  beliefs.  Critics  have  aligned 
themselves  on  one  side  or  the  other,  and  have 
given  an  exhibition  of  polemical  vindictiveness 
unsurpassed  in  the  records  of  judicial  literature. 
Even  the  layman,  usually  a silent  and  indifferent 
spectator  to  the  clashes  of  aesthetic  partisanship, 
has  taken  a hand,  and  expressed  his  opinion  in 

to 


no  uncertain  terms.  Scientists,  doctors,  and  psy- 
chologists have  come  forth  as  “expert”  witnesses, 
and  added  to  the  general  confusion. 

There  have  always  been  differences  of  ideals 
between  old  and  new  manifestations  of  thought; 
and  conflicts  of  opinion  accompany  all  intel- 
lectual progress  and  creative  effort.  But  during 
the  great  periods  of  the  world’s  sesthetic  activity 
one  can  find  always  in  the  opposing  factions  a 
certain  uniformity  of  purpose  and  homogeneity 
of  inspiration.  The  two  schools  of  painting 
during  the  nineteenth  century,  however,  have 
revealed  no  such  unified  evolutionary  direction. 
In  purposes,  ideals  and  methods,  graphic  art  has 
followed  two  distinct  lines  of  development — 
each  group  of  adherents  earnestly,  and  often 
viciously,  attacking  the  other,  and  refusing  to 
grant  even  a basis  of  truth  or  reason  to  its  op- 
ponents. 

Moreover,  as  time  went  by,  there  were  no  evi- 
dences of  a rapprochement  or  mutual  understand- 
ing. To-day — one  hundred  and  twenty-five 

years  after  the  early  pioneers  of  “modern  paint- 
ing” hoisted  the  banner  of  a new  art-procedure — 
the  antagonism  is  more  bitter  than  at  any  stage 
of  its  existence.  Nor  is  this  schism  in  the  ranks 
of  painting  a condition  of  the  past  two  decades. 

[*] 


The  same  violent  factional  opposition  has  existed 
since  the  precursors  of  modernist  movement — 
Turner,  Bonington,  Constable,  Delacroix,  Cour- 
bet and  Daumier — first  reacted  against  the  for- 
mulas and  traditions  of  the  neo-classicists,  and 
set  in  motion  that  sweeping  current  of  a new  art 
which  has  drawn  into  its  tempestuous  tide  many 
of  the  greatest  talents  of  modern  times. 

In  order  to  understand  the  perpetually  widen- 
ing chasm  between  academic  painting  and 
“modernist  painting,”  and  to  arrive  at  an  explana- 
tion for  the  seemingly  irreconcilable  attitudes 
held  by  the  exponents  of  these  two  procedures, 
it  is  necessary  to  define  the  art  of  painting  as 
originally  conceived,  and  to  trace  its  evolution 
to  the  point  where  disintegration  set  in.  More- 
over, it  is  necessary  to  analyze  the  basic  purposes 
of  painting  as  an  art,  and  to  determine  just  what 
impulses  and  aims  motivated  its  prosecution. 


[3] 


II 


Oil-painting  was  an  outgrowth  of  other  forms 
of  art,  but  principally  of  sculpture.  Indeed,  the 
finest  examples  of  painting  during  the  Renais- 
sance— the  epoch  in  which  the  primary  pictorial 
impulse  reached  its  fruition — were  wholly  sculp- 
tural. The  art  of  painting  as  practiced  by 
Giotto,  Giorgione,  Veronese,  Titian  and  Leon- 
ardo, may  be  said  to  have  absorbed  the  art  of 
sculpture.  Sculpture  reached  a high  point  of  de- 
velopment with  the  Greeks.  But  it  was  Michel- 
angelo who,  because  of  his  colossal  powers  of  or- 
ganization, succeeded  in  adding  the  third  plane 
to  sculpture,  thus  taking  the  final  step  in  the  art 
of  plastic  form.  Sculpture,  as  a creative  art, 
died  with  Michelangelo.  He  exhausted  its  pos- 
sibilities as  an  sesthetic  medium.  After  his 
achievements  in  marble  there  were  no  longer  any 
unsolved  problems  confronting  the  sculptor;  and 
all  sculpture  since  his  day  has  been  but  a modi- 
fication or  restatement  of  what  he  accomplished. 

[4] 


The  art  of  painting,  like  sculpture,  was  based 
on  definite  principles — technical,  intellectual  and 
philosophic.  These  principles  were  as  old  as  art 
itself.  They  were,  in  fact,  the  basic  principles 
of  all  aesthetic  creation.  The  painter  had  only  to 
master  these  principles  and  to  restate  them  in  a 
new  medium.  When  the  Van  Eycks — the  prac- 
tical inventors  of  oil-painting — made  possible  a 
new  art-form,  art-theory  was  already  far  ad- 
vanced; and  so  the  established  principles  of  art 
were  merely  transferred  to  another  metier . Dur- 
ing the  Renaissance  these  principles  reached  a 
very  profound  degree  of  sophisticated  projection, 
despite  the  fact  that  oil-painting  was  only  a cen- 
tury or  so  old.  Rut  none  of  the  Italians  suc- 
ceeded in  completely  and  finally  projecting  these 
principles  in  oil.  There  was  still  one  more  step 
to  be  taken,  just  as  there  had  been  one  more  step 
to  be  taken  in  sculpture  after  the  Greeks. 

In  much  the  same  way  that  Michelangelo 
carried  sculpture  to  its  final  decimal  point,  so  did 
Rubens  carry  the  art  of  painting  to  its  ultimate 
statement.  In  Rubens  the  art  of  oil-painting, 
as  a living  creative  factor,  culminated.  The 
principles  of  form  were  mastered  and  given  ex- 
pression by  him  for  all  time.  The  problems  of 
organization,  in  relation  to  the  graphic  medium, 

[5] 


were  solved  and  set  aside.  Since  Rubens,  the 
only  advances  in  painting  have  been  in  the  realm 
of  methods  and  means.  The  only  problems 
which  faced  the  painter  who  came  after  him  were 
purely  technical  ones.  And  even  these  problems 
have  now  been  solved.  No  painter  has  sur- 
passed, or  ever  will  surpass,  Rubens,  no  matter 
how  much  the  surface  aspect  of  canvases  may 
change. 

A perfect  parallel  exists  in  music.  The  art  of 
music  culminated  in  Beethoven — that  is  to  say: 
Beethoven  gave  a final  statement  to  the  principles 
of  musical  form.  His  symphonies,  as  form,  will 
never  be  surpassed.  All  significant  compositions 
since  his  time  have  been  based  upon  his  aesthetic 
structures. 

However,  there  have  been  many  researches 
made  on  the  technical  side  of  music.  Numerous 
advances  in  methods  have  taken  place,  such  as  the 
development  of  the  orchestra,  and  the  complicat- 
ing of  harmonics.  It  is  only  along  the  line  of 
what  we  might  call  the  orchestration  of  painting 
that  there  has  been  any  progress  in  the  graphic  art 
since  Rubens. 

The  “new”  music  is,  in  reality,  an  art  of  sound 
and  harmonics;  for  it  is  primarily  scientific,  and 
has  to  do  almost  exclusively  with  the  medium  of 

[6] 


music.  Whether  one  employs  a whole-tone 
scale,  a new  set  of  chord-sequences  and  a highly 
augmented  and  complicated  orchestra  with  all 
manner  of  novel  effects,  or  whether  one  uses 
merely  the  primitive  harmonics  and  simple  orches- 
tral musical  form  of  Haydn,  the  fundamental 
statement  of  the  principles  of  musical  form  are  in 
no  way  altered.  The  aesthetic  basis  of  music  it- 
self is  not  affected.  A Beethoven  symphony 
played  on  a piano  in  simplified  arrangement,  is 
just  as  advanced,  just  as  profound  and  final,  from 
the  standpoint  of  musical  form,  as  if  played  by  a 
one-hundred-and-fifty-piece  orchestra,  and  ar- 
ranged by  the  most  modern  of  contrapuntalists 
and  mathematical  harmonists. 

Painting,  however,  developed  technically  far 
beyond  music.  The  medium  of  painting  kept  al- 
most abreast  of  the  development  of  its  esthetic 
content.  To-day  there  are  no  longer  any  prob- 
lems, either  technical  or  aesthetic,  confronting  the 
painter.  Painting  is,  and  has  been  for  many 
years,  a finished  art.  For,  in  any  definition  of  an 
art,  the  original  intent  must  be  considered. 

What,  then,  one  asks,  has  been  the  nature  of 
all  the  labor  and  researches  in  painting  since 
Rubens?  If  painting  terminated  with  Rubens, 
what  is  the  status  of  the  great  pictorial  artists 

[7] 


since  his  day?  Are  we  to  repudiate  all  the  splen- 
did work  done  by  the  more  modern  men?  Are 
the  new  color-theories  of  Delacroix  to  go  for 
naught  ? Are  the  volumnear  conceptions  of  Dau- 
mier to  be  ignored?  Are  we  to  disregard  the 
experimentations  in  light  made  by  the  Impres- 
sionists? The  chromatic,  optical,  and  formal 
researches  of  Cezanne,  the  harmonics  of  Matisse, 
the  planar  abstractions  of  the  Cubists,  the  ration- 
alization of  the  palette  by  the  Synchromists — 
are  all  these  technical  advances  of  no  value  to  the 
world  of  art? 

The  answer  to  these  questions  is  the  crux  of  the 
whole  disagreement  between  the  academic  paint- 
ers and  the  modernists.  The  truth  is  that  so- 
called  modern  painting  is  not  an  art  of  painting 
at  all.  The  experiments  and  researches  in 
pictorialism  since  1800  have  been  along  the  lines 
of  an  entirely  new  art — an  art  basically  distinct 
from  that  of  painting — an  art  whose  purposes, 
impulses,  motives  and  final  goal  are  intrinsically 
different  from  those  of  the  art  of  painting. 


[8] 


Ill 


“Modernist  painting,”  against  which  the  ad- 
vocates of  academic  painting  have  protested  so 
bitterly,  is,  in  reality,  an  art  of  color.  And  the 
reason  that  it  is  so  widely  misunderstood  and  has 
given  rise  to  so  many  misconceptions,  is  due  to 
the  fact  that,  for  over  a hundred  years,  it  has  been 
measured  by  the  standards  of  painting  to  which 
it  does  not,  and  can  not,  conform,  any  more  than 
the  art  of  the  drama  can  be  made  to  conform  to 
the  standards  of  the  art  of  poetry. 

The  new  art  of  color  has  been  condemned  by 
the  exponents  of  painting  because  it  did  not  ful- 
fill the  functions  of  painting;  and  the  art  of 
painting  has  been  condemned  by  exponents  of  the 
new  art  of  color  because  it  did  not  fulfill  the  func- 
tions of  the  new  art  of  color.  The  misunder- 
standing has  been  mutual.  The  entire  conflict 
has  been  one  of  a misconception  of  purpose  and 
ideals — one  might  almost  say,  of  nomenclature. 

This  confusing  of  two  separate  arts,  and  the 

[9] 


continual  efforts  to  reconcile  two  divergent  meth- 
ods of  aesthetic  procedure,  and  to  measure  each  by 
the  other’s  standard,  grew  originally  out  of  the 
fact  that  their  metiers  and  processes  were  identi- 
cal. Also,  there  were  certain  apparent,  but  not 
actual,  similarities  of  purpose  in  the  two  arts, 
which  resulted  in  the  new  art  of  color  being  re- 
garded as  a development  of  painting — a logical 
and  direct  development,  according  to  the  defend- 
ers of  modern  art ; a distorted  and  abortive  devel- 
opment, according  to  the  adherents  of  the  older 
painting.  But  while  the  aft  of  color  sprang 
from,  and  grew  out  of,  the  art  of  painting,  it  was, 
in  reality,  an  independent  organism.  Its  evolu- 
tion, instead  of  being  a direct  progressus , was  in 
the  nature  of  a differentiation. 

In  very  much  the  same  way  have  the  different 
forms  of  literary  art  sprung  from  the  saga  and 
the  fable.  Poetry,  the  drama,  criticism,  and  the 
novel  are  individual  arts,  each  governed  by,  and 
accountable  to,  its  own  specific  laws  and  stand- 
ards. Though  possessing  a common  source,  and 
making  use  of  the  same  metier , they  are  positive 
differentiations  of  a specific  mother  impulse.  In 
like  manner  the  art  of  color  has  differentiated  it- 
self from  the  art  of  painting;  and  though  it  has  ex- 
pressed itself  thus  far  through  the  same  metier 

[10] 


(namely:  canvas,  paint,  and  pictorial  objectiv- 
ity), it  has  followed  its  own  purposes  and  im- 
pulses, irrespective  of  the  purposes  and  impulses 
of  the  older  art  of  painting. 

Aside  from  the  borrowed  metier  of  this  new  art 
of  color,  which  has  led  even  its  practitioners  to 
misinterpret  its  true  status,  there  was  a long  period 
of  gestation  during  which  the  outward  manifesta- 
tions of  the  two  arts  were  so  similar — due  to  the 
minuteness  of  the  differentiation  process — that 
their  separate  individualities  were  barely  distin- 
guishable; and  the  one  was  therefore  regarded  as 
a slight  variation  of  the  other.  The  confusion 
arising  from  this  similarity  spread  and  took  root. 
Soon  it  became  a fixed  notion  in  the  world  of  art. 
In  time  every  new  manifestation  of  the  art  of 
color  was  accepted  as  an  attempt  to  alter  the 
status  of  the  art  of  painting,  to  improve  upon  the 
conceptions  of  the  Renaissance  and  Rubens,  and 
to  push  forward  the  evolution  of  the  graphic  art. 
As  the  breach  between  the  two  “schools”  widened 
— that  is,  as  the  art  of  color  drew  further  and 
further  away  from  that  of  painting — the  mis- 
understanding increased,  and  the  exponents  of 
the  two  arts  became  more  and  more  alienated. 

Had  the  progenitors  themselves  of  this  new  art 
not  mistaken  the  impulses  which  animated  their 

[11] 


various  researches,  and  had  they  at  once  hoisted 
the  flag  of  a new  sesthetic  procedure  and  sought  at 
once  for  a new  medium,  the  world  would  then 
have  been  spared  all  this  controversy  between  the 
classicists  and  the  modernists.  But  such  a course 
was,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  impossible.  So 
closely  were  the  early  impulses  of  pictorial  ex- 
perimentation related  to  the  impulses  of  the  art  of 
painting,  that  canvas  and  pigments  were  the 
natural  and  instinctive  means  for  the  work  of 
research  to  which  these  pioneers  set  themselves. 

Although  the  early  modernists  felt  the  urge  of 
new  discoveries  and  the  necessity  for  the  solving 
of  new  problems,  their  creative  instincts  were  so 
intimately  allied  to  the  external  aspects  of  paint- 
ing, that  they  themselves  did  not  at  first  draw  the 
line  of  distinction  between  the  two  arts.  To  the 
contrary,  they  immediately  set  up  an  elaborate 
a-posteriori  defense  of  their  activities  from  the 
standpoint  of  painters.  Only  Cezanne,  the 
greatest  and  perhaps  most  self-conscious  of  all  the 
new  men,  recognized  the  truth.  Shortly  before 
his  death  he  said:  “I  have  not  'realized/  and  I 

shall  never  'realize’  now.  I shall  always  remain 
the  primitive  of  the  way  I have  opened .” 

There  is  no  doubt  that  habit  also  had  much  to 
do  with  the  choice  of  canvas  and  paint  by  the 

[12] 


precursors  of  the  new  color-art.  The  technique  of 
painting  was  familiar;  and  there  were  no  obstacles 
to  overcome  in  the  handling  of  the  painter’s  tools. 
Moreover,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  art  of 
painting  was  the  matrix  out  of  which  the  art  of 
color  grew,  and  that  there  was  a period  of  almost 
identical  interests — a period  of  parturition,  as  it 
were,  during  which  the  art  of  painting  carried  in 
its  womb  the  germs  of  this  new  life.  Therefore, 
it  was  necessary  for  the  latter  to  express  itself 
through  the  art  of  painting,  at  least  until  the 
embryonic  growth  should  have  been  completed. 
Later,  when  the  birth  of  the  new  art  took  place, 
there  was  a separation;  and  the  two  art-forms  pro- 
ceeded to  function  as  distinct  entities.  But  so 
widely  disseminated  and  deeply  implanted  had 
become  the  idea  that  the  two  arts  were  identical, 
that  even  when  the  separation  came,  the  true 
situation  was  not  recognized.  Instead,  an  in- 
creased antagonism  rose  between  the  two  groups 
of  artists,  their  camp-followers  and  partisans,  each 
group  imagining  itself  the  rightful  interpreters  of 
the  other’s  doctrines. 


[13] 


IV 


Another  potent  reason  for  this  confusion  and 
misunderstanding  lies  in  the  widely  manifested 
influence  exerted  on  the  art  of  painting  by  the 
new  art  of  color,  as  well  as  the  obvious  evidences 
that  the  new  art  of  color  derived  almost  unlimited 
inspiration  from  the  older  art  of  painting.  The 
visual  bond  alone  has  been  sufficient  to  mislead 
many  into  accepting  both  arts  as  merely  divergent 
manifestations  of  the  same  impulse.  The  art  of 
color  has  certainly  had  a profound  effect  upon 
painting — even  upon  the  most  traditional  and 
formalized  academic  painting.  Of  late  years 
there  has  been  evident  in  the  most  conservative  of 
“salon”  pictures  a new  freedom  of  technique,  a 
broader  approach  to  subject-matter,  a deeper  con- 
cern with  organization  and  abstract  form,  and, 
above  all,  a much  bolder,  purer  and  more  vital 
use  of  color.  The  old-fashioned  pictorial  anec- 
dote has  almost  disappeared;  and  the  meticulous, 
photographic  technique,  so  popular  a half-centurv 

[14] 


ago,  has  given  place  to  broad,  vigorous  and  im- 
pressionistic brushing. 

These  influences,  however,  do  not  prove  or 
even  indicate  a consanguinity  between  the  two 
arts.  Mutual  influences  in  the  arts  are  always  to 
be  found;  and  similarities  in  technical  procedure 
are  very  often  due  to  a common  source  of  domi- 
nation from  without,  rather  than  to  an  inter- 
activity between  the  art-forms  themselves — just 
as  the  resemblance  of  two  persons  may  be  traced 
to  a common  parent  rather  than  to  any  mutual 
imitative  mechanism.  The  new  freedom,  in  both 
conception  and  execution,  which  marks  the  work 
of  modern  scholastic  painters,  is  attributable  as 
much  to  those  general  demands  for  intensity  in 
aesthetic  stimuli  (which  brought  forth  the  art  of 
color)  as  to  the  direct  influence  of  the  new  art 
itself.  Indeed,  it  is  wholly  a specious  contention 
that  the  change  in  academic  art  proves  the  sound- 
ness of  the  modernist  aesthetic. 

That  academic  art  has  been  influenced,  how- 
ever, is  undeniable.  But  academic  art  has  given 
far  more  to  the  new  art  of  color  than  the  new  art 
of  color  has  given  to  academic  art.  We  can  find 
abundant  influences  of  the  art  of  poetry  in  the  art 
of  the  drama;  and  the  modern  naturalistic  novel 
has  most  certainly  exerted  an  influence  on  the  art 

[15] 


of  poetry.,  (One  notices  it  in  Masefield,  for  in- 
stance.) But  such  influences  do  not  indicate  even 
a similarity  of  aesthetic  objective.  Nor  is  either 
art  thus  influenced  by  a sister  art  to  be  condemned 
because  the  ultimate  effects  of  the  imitation  are 
not  the  same  as  in  the  other. 

Therefore,  the  mutual  influence  of  academic 
art  and  modernistic  art  can  not  be  advanced  as 
evidence  that  they  are  striving  towards  the  same 
goal,  and  that  one  achieves  its  aesthetic  purpose 
with  greater  efficiency  than  the  other.  Their 
goals  are  entirely  different,  and  their  influence 
upon  one  another  must  not  be  mistaken  for  an  at- 
tempt to  usurp  one  another’s  field.  Nor  should 
either  art  be  disparaged  or  denounced  because  it 
fails  to  attain  the  goal  towards  which  the  other  is 
striving. 

I have  sought  to  define  briefly  the  art  of  paint- 
ing and  to  indicate  its  motives  and  its  aims.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  clarify  the  duality  of  the  dis- 
pute centering  about  modernistic  art,  it  is  also 
necessary  to  analyze  the  motives  and  aims  of  the 
new  art  of  color,  and  to  point  out  those  conditions 
in  modern  life  which  have  brought  it  into  exist- 
ence; for  all  art  springs  into  being  in  response  to 
an  emotional  and  psychological  demand.  Then, 
with  a definition  of  the  art  of  color,  and  a defini- 

[16] 


tion  of  the  art  of  painting,  an  sesthetic  comparison 
may  be  made,  which  will  at  once  reveal  the  fun- 
damental divergencies  of  these  two  creative  im- 
pulses. 

Once  these  divergencies  become  manifest — 
once  the  world  is  brought  to  realize  that  the 
modern  colorist  is  not  attempting  to  usurp  the 
prerogatives  of  painting,  and  that  the  continuance 
of  academic  painting  can  in  no  way  affect  the  pros- 
ecution and  development  of  the  art  of  color — 
then  the  causes  of  animosity  and  dissension  will 
have  been  removed,  and  competition,  enmity  and 
misunderstanding  will  disappear.  For,  in  reality, 
there  is  no  excuse  or  reason  for  the  differences  of 
opinion  between  the  academic  painter  and  the 
modernist. 


[17] 


V 


At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  the 
creative  artist — and  especially  the  artist  whose 
aesthetic  instincts  tended  towards  visual  expres- 
sion— felt  the  need  of  a new  method  of  stating 
his  artistic  concepts.  He  had  come  to  realize 
that  the  existing  graphic  means  were  exhausted. 
The  colossal  forms  of  Rubens,  organized  with  a 
highly  sensitized  and  magistral  technique,  left 
the  painter  facing  a neant . To  surpass  Rubens 
was  impossible.  The  principles  of  composition 
had  been  mastered  and  stated  in  perfectly  poised 
three-dimensional  form.  The  implication  of  ab- 
stract plasticity  had  been  projected  through  re- 
cognizable subject-matter;  and  nothing  was  to  be 
gained  by  merely  eliminating  the  naturalistic  ob- 
ject— the  only  possible  logical  step  left  for  the 
painter  to  take.  In  fact,  the  elimination  of  rep- 
resentative document  would  do  away  with,  or  at 
least  greatly  diminish,  the  emotional  appeal  of 
painting;  for  the  form,  being  intellectual,  re- 

[18] 


quired  the  emotional  balance  of  objective  nature. 
Hence,  to  carry  painting  to  its  logical  conclusion 
would  result  in  a reductio  ad  absurdum. 

Wherein,  then,  lay  the  opportunity  for  visual 
expression,  without  resorting  to  mere  repetition 
and  imitation?  The  answer  was:  in  color.  (In 
Ruskin’s  expositions  of  Turner’s  painting,  and 
in  the  notebooks  of  Delacroix,  we  find  abundant 
evidence  that  these  two  great  precursors  of  the  art 
of  color  reasoned  along  this  very  line;  and  that 
their  reasoning — often  instinctive  and  intuitive — 
led  to  their  elaborate  color-theories  and  to  their 
entirely  new  treatment  of  pigments.) 

Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  all  painting  up  to 
the  time  of  Turner  and  Delacroix  was  an  art  of 
black-and-white.  Color  played  no  organic  part 
in  the  classic  pictorial  conception.  All  forms 
and  rhythms  were  conceived  and  expressed  in 
drawing;  and  all  volumes  and  tones — namely: 
the  means  for  obtaining  solidity  and  structure — 
were  produced  by  the  scale  of  grays.  The 
“studies”  for  most  of  the  great  masterpieces 
of  the  past  were  done  in  monotint;  and  the  most 
profound  problems  presented  by  these  pictures 
were  solved  by  line  and  black-and-white  masses. 
We  know  that  in  some  of  the  greatest  of  the  old 
canvases  the  color-scheme  and  even  the  tonal  tints 

[19] 


were  not  decided  upon  until  the  picture  had  been 
fully  conceived  and  worked  out.  Color,  as  a rule, 
was  put  on  as  an  afterthought,  generally  in  imita- 
tion of  nature,  as  a kind  of  decoration  or  beautifi- 
cation. It  was,  in  short,  merely  a reinforcement 
of  drawing.  This  is  why  the  majority  of  the 
works  of  the  old  masters  are  as  artistic  in  black- 
and-white  reproduction  as  in  their  original  colors. 
In  fact,  many  an  old  masterpiece  is  superior  in 
black-and-white  reproduction,  for  it  comes  nearer 
to  the  artist’s  original  conception;  and  the  func- 
tioning of  the  superimposed  colors  (which  was  not 
then  understood)  does  not  clash  with  the  function- 
ing of  the  lines  and  forms. 

The  fact  is — and  it  is  too  often  overlooked — 
that  the  art  of  painting  is  not  an  art  of  color . 
Color,  indeed,  had  practically  nothing  to  do  with 
the  aesthetic  evolution  of  painting.  Had  there 
been  only  black-and-white  oil-paints,  the  art  of 
painting  would  still  have  progressed  in  very  much 
the  same  way  that  it  has  done,  and  the  achieve- 
ments of  the  art  of  painting  would  have  been 
practically  what  they  are  now,  save  that  they 
would  have  been  less  decorative,  less  naturalistic, 
and  less  emotional. 

The  so-called  modern  painter,  realizing  this 

[20] 


fact,  focused  his  attention  on  color,  and  endeav- 
ored to  make  it  an  intrinsic  and  organic  element 
in  the  projection  of  pictorial  forms.  In  so  doing, 
he  reversed  the  very  process  of  the  art  of  painting. 
For  a time  he  even  ignored  the  principles  of  form 
and  the  laws  of  composition  on  which  the  art  of 
painting  was  based.  His  achievements  had  noth- 
ing in  common  with  painting  beyond  the  super- 
ficial projection  of  visual  nature.  His  entire  con- 
cern was  with  the  theory  of  color.  All  the  ac- 
tivities in  “modern  painting’7  have  had  one  object 
for  their  goal — the  solution  of  the  problems  of 
color.  To  call  these  researches  and  experimenta- 
tions the  art  of  painting  is  a contradiction,  and  a 
denial  of  the  very  foundation  on  which  that  art 
was  reared. 

Turner  sought  to  heighten  the  intensity  of 
color.  Delacroix  strove  to  develop  the  dramatic 
possibilities  of  color.  The  Impressionists  en- 
deavored to  solve  the  problem  of  light  and  vi- 
bration. The  Pointillists  carried  the  science  of 
color-juxtaposition  and  the  interactivity  of  com- 
plementaries  to  a coldly  intellectual  extreme. 
Gauguin  worked  exclusively  in  the  decorative  val- 
ues of  pure  color.  Matisse  devoted  himself  to 
the  harmonic  relationships  of  color.  The  Cubists 

[21] 


sought  to  eliminate  objectivity — the  essence  of 
painting — and  to  achieve  form  by  intersecting 
tonal  planes.  Cezanne  carried  his  researches  in 
the  optics  of  chromatic  gradations  to  a point 
where  he  was  able  to  determine  the  active  func- 
tions of  color,  and  thus  to  supplant  form  with 
color,  thereby  achieving  a simultaneous  concep- 
tion, and  eliminating  the  very  basis  of  painting 
— namely:  representation  by  line  and  mass  in  the 
scale  of  black-and-white.  The  Synchromists, 
carrying  forward  Cezanne’s  discoveries,  coor- 
dinated and  rationalized  the  palette,  and  made 
of  every  color  and  tone  in  the  painter’s  entire 
gamut  a relatively  fixed  attribute  in  the  construc- 
tion of  form. 

This,  in  brief,  is  an  outline  of  the  evolution  of 
what  is  erroneously  termed  “modern  painting.” 
At  no  point  in  this  evolution  is  there  discernible 
a single  fundamental  relationship  with  the  art  of 
older  painting;  and  for  several  decades  even  the 
demands  of  aesthetic  form  were  ignored.  Every 
advance,  every  new  step,  was  along  the  line  of 
scientific  or  harmonic  color-research.  What  is 
more,  no  experimentation  or  discovery  made  by 
the  exponents  of  this  new  art  affected  the  status 
of  painting,  or  altered  a single  truth  or  principle 
of  that  art.  There  has  been  no  actual  conflict, 

[22] 


for  both  the  methods  and  the  aims  of  the  new  art 
of  color  are  wholly  outside  the  realm  of  painting 
as  originally  conceived  and  practiced  for  four 
hundred  years. 


[23] 


VI 

Where  the  art  of  color  reveals  its  greatest  dis- 
similarity to  the  art  of  painting  is  in  the  incentive 
which  produced  it.  As  I have  stated  in  my 
“Modern  Painting”  and  elsewhere,  this  new  art 
of  color  is  striving  for  an  intensity  of  effect  which 
the  older  painting  does  not  possess.  The  world 
to-day  demands  more  powerful  aesthetic  stimuli 
than  it  did  in  the  past.  The  reason  for  this  is  to 
be  found  in  the  new  conditions  of  modern  life, 
and  in  the  corresponding  emotional  development 
of  mankind.  Modern  life  has  markedly  in- 
creased in  intensity  as  a result  of  mechanics, 
densely  populated  areas,  the  flooding  of  the  mind 
with  a vast  amount  of  knowledge  of  events 
through  the  perfecting  of  means  for  collecting 
news,  the  rapidity  of  travel,  the  world’s  swiftly 
moving  panorama,  the  discoveries  in  brilliant 
artificial  lights,  etc.  These  complexities  and  in- 
tensifications in  man’s  existence  to-day  tend  to 
deaden  the  mind,  through  the  senses,  to  the 

[24] 


subtleties  of  minute  variations  of  grays,  the 
monotonies  of  simple  melodies  and  rhythms,  and 
similar  manifestations  of  a day  when  febrile  liv- 
ing had  not  blunted  the  sensibilities. 

All  art  must  dominate  life.  This  is  as  true 
to-day  as  in  the  Middle  Ages.  The  modern 
workers  in  color  have  realized  that  only  by  per- 
fecting the  purely  mechanical  side  of  painting  can 
a new  intensity,  commensurate  with  modern 
needs,  be  achieved  in  the  realm  of  visual  art. 
To  be  sure,  great  painting  will  always  remain 
great  as  long  as  our  organisms  remain  unchanged ; 
yet  the  demands  of  human  evolution  must  be 
met;  and  it  is  a result  of  these  demands  that  the 
means  and  media  of  all  the  arts  are  to-day  being 
developed  through  study  and  experimentation. 
This  is  what  is  known  as  the  “modern  move- 
ment.” 

We  hear  many  complaints  directed  at  the 
public’s  indifference  toward  painting;  and  the 
truth  is  that  to-day  only  painters  are  vitally  in- 
terested in  painting  as  an  art . The  reason  is  that 
the  average  painter  of  to-day  has  little  realization 
that  the  world — psychologically  speaking — has 
progressed  since  1600.  He  is  apparently  unaware 
that  the  emotional  development  of  three  cen- 
turies has  rendered  the  art  of  painting  inadequate 

[25] 


to  the  aesthetic  needs  of  the  present.  The  mod- 
ern art  of  color  has,  by  its  very  vividness,  at- 
tracted a host  of  admirers  who  might  otherwise 
seek  a mild  reaction  in  conventional  painting. 
The  painter  naturally  sees  in  this  new  art  a dan- 
gerous rival.  His  animosity  is  therefore  aroused 
automatically,  like  a sort  of  protective  mechan- 
ism. The  fault,  of  course  lies  in  the  fact  that  he 
is  still  living  in  an  olden,  placid  age  before  com- 
plexity and  noise  blunted  man’s  sensibilities  and 
created  a demand  for  a more  powerful  stimulant. 
Only  the  “modern  painter” — to  wit:  the  re- 
searcher in  color — has  sensed  the  change. 

Music,  on  the  other  hand,  has  developed  and 
enlarged  its  scope  to  meet  the  public’s  aesthetic 
needs.  The  orchestra  has  been  greatly  aug- 
mented; new  instruments  have  been  invented; 
more  brass  is  used;  and  the  volume  of  “noise” 
in  orchestration  has  been  increased.  Further- 
more, the  forms  of  music  have  grown  more  intri- 
cate and  profound.  The  fugue  and  the  rondo 
evolved  into  the  Bach  quartette;  and  the  quar- 
tette, in  Haydn’s  hands,  was  developed  into  the 
symphony.  Even  the  symphony  was  extended 
and  complicated  by  Beethoven  and  Brahms. 
Then  new  harmonics,  new  effects  and  new  scales 
came  into  vogue.  In  fine,  the  stimulus  of  music 

[26] 


grew  more  powerful  as  mankind  demanded  more 
powerful  reactions. 

The  development  of  literature  progressed  simi- 
larly. Not  only  did  new  and  intricate  forms  of 
literary  art  arise,  but  the  older  forms — poetry,  fic- 
tion, and  the  drama — increased  in  intensity.  In 
both  music  and  literature  one  sees  a constant  evo- 
lutionary process  at  work;  and  that  process  has 
gone  hand  in  hand  with  mankind’s  aesthetic  evo- 
lution. Regard  the  novel  of  fifty  years  ago,  or 
the  orchestra  in  Beethoven’s  time ; and  then  com- 
pare these  two  art-types  with  the  corresponding 
types  of  to-day.  Beethoven’s  orchestra  would 
not  meet  the  emotional  demands  of  the  present. 
Nor  would  the  old-fashioned  200,000-word  novel, 
with  its  quiet,  leisurely  manner  and  its  prolix 
verbiage,  satisfy  our  modern  literary  tastes. 
How,  then,  can  we  expect  the  painting  of  two 
or  three  centuries  ago  to  supply  our  current  emo- 
tional needs4? 

The  reason  that  music  and  literature  have  been 
able  to  keep  more  or  less  abreast  of  the  sesthetic  re- 
quirements of  man,  is  that  these  two  arts  were 
practically  in  their  infancy  when  painting  was 
approaching  its  final  and  complete  flowering. 
Painting  during  the  Renaissance  had  progressed, 
in  the  statement  of  form  and  in  the  evolution  of 


organizational  principles,  further  than  music  had 
progressed  in  the  hands  of  Beethoven  and  Brahms. 
That  complicated  and  perfectly  balanced  example 
of  aesthetic  form,  which  we  call  the  symphony, 
had  achieved  a corresponding  development  in 
painting  at  the  time  of  Giorgione,  Titian  and 
Veronese.  And  the  orchestrating  of  forms — 
namely,  the  technical  means  for  projecting  com- 
positional concepts — such  as  music  attained  to 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
had  reached  a correspondingly  advanced  stage  in 
painting,  at  the  time  of  Rubens.  In  brief,  the 
mastering  of  the  basic  problems  of  art,  and  the 
organized  statement  of  the  principles  of  aesthetic 
form,  which  are  to-day  occupying  the  attention 
of  the  exponents  of  music  and  literature,  were 
completed  by  the  exponents  of  painting  centuries 
ago. 

This  is  why  there  has  been  no  modern  prog- 
ress in  the  art  of  painting,  and  why  the  aesthetic 
stimulus  it  offers  is  not  sufficiently  powerful  to 
produce  adequate  reactions  in  the  modern  organ- 
isms. Furthermore,  this  emotional  impotency  of 
painting  explains  the  greater  public  interest 
to-day  in  music  and  literature — a condition  which 
was  reversed  in  the  Middle  Ages. 


[28] 


VII 


Although  the  new  art  of  color  has  tended  to 
supplant  the  older  art  of  painting,  it  can  never 
replace  painting.  But  because  the  art  of  color 
is  still  expressing  itself  through  the  borrowed 
medium  of  painting,  it  is  generally  considered  a 
competitor  of  the  graphic  art;  and  this  misinter- 
pretation of  its  status  has  given  rise  to  a further 
misconception  which,  in  large  measure,  accounts 
for  the  animosity  and  ridicule  so  often  aroused 
by  examples  of  the  modernist’s  work.  Since  the 
art  of  color  is  regarded  as  a competitor  of  paint- 
ing, the  mistaken  conclusion  to  which  the  public 
has  come  is  that  the  art  of  color,  like  painting,  is 
a decorative  art — or,  rather,  is  striving  to  fulfill  a 
decorative  function. 

Painting  has  always  been  accepted  as  a means 
for  decorating  the  interior  of  buildings.  During 
the  Renaissance  the  primary  object  of  painting 
was  the  beautification  of  the  Church.  Gradually 
pictures  found  their  way  into  all  manner  of  pub- 

[29] 


lie  buildings,  and  finally  into  the  home.  So 
firmly  has  this  decorative  idea  taken  hold  of  both 
public  and  painter,  that  houses  are  now  built  with 
the  hanging  of  pictures  in  mind ; and  the  size  and 
shape  and  subjects  of  canvases  have  been  influ- 
enced by  the  demands  of  mural  hanging. 

But  whereas  the  destiny  of  painting  was  a 
decorative  one,  the  art  of  color  fills  no  such  utili- 
tarian place  in  the  aesthetic  scheme  of  things. 
Not  only  is  the  very  nature  of  this  new  art  op- 
posed to  so  neutral  and  passive  a function,  but 
the  psychological  needs  which  brought  it  forth 
preclude  its  being  relegated  to  such  a purpose. 
The  art  of  color  does  not  belong  in  the  home. 
It  is  not  an  unobtrusive  form  of  beauty  which 
can  be  enjoyed  or  ignored  at  will;  and  it  is  essen- 
tially inappropriate  as  a constant  accompaniment, 
or  background,  to  our  everyday  existences.  As  I 
have  pointed  out,  it  is  a highly  intensified  emo- 
tional stimulant — a stimulant,  in  fact,  whose  very 
intensity  is  its  raison  d'etre.  There  is  no  escap- 
ing the  effects  of  this  art,  once  contact  with  it 
has  been  established.  It  is  distracting  and  ab- 
sorbing, and,  when  successfully  conceived  and  exe- 
cuted, fixes  the  attention  and  produces  a positive 
and  poignant  reaction — both  intellectual  and 
emotional. 


[30] 


When  an  admirer  of  academic  painting  remarks 
that  he  would  go  insane  if  he  had  to  live  day  in 
and  day  out  with  one  of  these  “modern’ 5 canvases, 
he  is  stating  (in  exaggerated  terms)  a simple  and 
obvious  truth.  His  implied  criticism  is  wholly 
justified.  But  it  is  a criticism  which  in  no  way 
reflects  upon  the  merits  of  the  work  of  art  in 
question,  but  which,  to  the  contrary,  indicates  that 
the  artist  has  achieved  a more  vivid  and  potent 
statement  of  pictorial  form  than  is  to  be  found  in 
academic  painting.  Adjectives  such  as  “harsh” 
and  “blatant,”  when  applied  to  examples  of  the 
new  art,  are,  from  the  standpoint  of  painting, 
both  accurate  and  just.  The  stricture  implied  in 
such  adjectives  rises  from  the  mistaken  notion 
that  the  art  of  color  is  seeking  to  fulfill  the  same 
destiny  as  is  the  art  of  painting,  and  is  therefore 
to  be  gauged  by  the  same  standards.  Obviously, 
harshness  and  blatancy  are  not  virtues  in  paint- 
ing. But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  do  constitute 
a virtue  when  applied  to  the  art  of  color. 

The  music,  for  instance,  which  we  play  in  our 
homes  must  be  subdued  and  accommodated  to  its 
surroundings.  But  when  we  attend  a symphony 
concert,  tremendous  volumes  of  sound,  large  num- 
bers of  executants,  and  fortissimo  passages  are 
not  out  of  place.  That  is  to  say,  intensity  in 

[31] 


sesthetic  stimuli  (namely:  “harshness”  or  “blat- 
ancy”)  is,  under  certain  conditions,  not  only  a 
virtue  but  an  essential.  However,  should  a host- 
ess in  a private  home  entertain  her  guests  for  an 
entire  evening  with  Brahms  symphonies  and 
Strauss  tone-poems  rendered  by  an  orchestra  of  a 
hundred  pieces,  there  would  be  quite  as  many  de- 
rogatory ejaculations  of  “blatant”  and  “harsh” 
as  we  hear  when  it  is  proposed  that  one  hangs  ex- 
amples of  modern  color-art  in  one’s  home. 

The  new  art  of  color,  despite  its  present  metier 
and  the  fact  that  it  is  still  in  a groping,  experi- 
mental stage,  belongs  not  to  the  decorative  and 
atmospheric  arts,  but  to  what  may  be  called  the 
entertainment  art-form,  such  as  the  symphony 
concert,  the  drama,  and  the  spectacle.  When  it 
has  found  its  true  medium,  and  has  developed 
into  a fixed  and  organized  type  of  expression,  it 
will  lose  its  present  utilitarian  aspect,  and  will — 
beyond  all  peradventure  of  misconception — take 
its  place  alongside  those  sesthetic  stimuli  which 
possess  our  natures  and  our  minds  wholly  during 
their  exhibition,  and  which  produce  such  reactions 
as  can  be  endured  only  at  intervals  and  for  limited 
periods  of  time.  Sculpture  and  the  graphic  arts 
do  not  belong  in  this  category;  and  herein  lies 
one  of  the  most  significant  and  fundamental  dif- 

[32] 


ferences  between  the  art  of  painting  and  the  art 
of  color.  Indeed,  when  this  new  color-art  has  at- 
tained its  inevitable  goal,  it  will  bear  a much 
closer  aesthetic  relationship  to  music  than  to  paint- 
ing. Even  now  its  achievements — slight  and 
abecedary  as  they  are — have,  in  many  cases, 
proved  themselves  capable  of  producing  keen 
emotional  reactions. 


[33] 


VIII 


The  reason  why  the  reactions  possible  from 
this  new  art  are  far  more  intense  and  satisfying 
than  the  reactions  to  be  obtained  from  painting, 
lies  in  the  different  physiological  effects  produced 
by  the  two  media.  The  medium  of  painting 
is  form  represented  by  subject-matter — linear 
rhythms,  chiaroscuro,  and  structural  solidity 
achieved  by  black-and-white;  whereas  the  me- 
dium of  the  art  of  color  is  a physical  property 
which  has  a direct  vibratory  action  upon  the  optic 
nerve  of  much  the  same  kind  that  sound-waves 
have  upon  the  ear-drum. 

Without  going  into  a scientific  explanation  of 
the  difference  between  the  medium  of  the  art  of 
painting  and  that  of  the  art  of  color,  I think  I 
can  make  my  point  sufficiently  clear  by  a simple 
analogy.  For  example,  a single  black  line  or 
smudge  on  a piece  of  white  paper,  when  acting 
upon  the  eye,  does  not  have  the  same  physiological 
effect  as  does  a single  pure  color.  A color  in  itself 

[34] 


possesses  what  we  call  beauty— that  is  to  say,  it 
causes  a pleasurable  reaction,  just  as  does  a single 
note  played  on  an  organ.  But  a single  gray,  black 
or  white  line  (or  mass)  does  not  produce  this 
pleasing  physical  reaction.  (Its  equivalent  in 
sound  is  a mere  bit  of  natural  noise;  and,  in  an 
orchestra,  black  and  gray  are  represented  by  the 
drums.) 

The  art  of  painting  makes  use  of  the  latter 
medium ; the  art  of  color  the  former.  The  color- 
ing or  tinting  of  works  of  painting  after  their 
structural  completion,  may,  as  I have  pointed  out, 
enhance  their  visual  appeal;  but  the  colors  thus 
applied  are  not  the  basis  of  the  aesthetic  form,  and 
therefore  are  not  the  source  of  our  enjoyment; 
for  a painting  in  black-and-white  reproduction  is 
still  a work  of  art,  and  provocative  of  an  aesthetic 
reaction. 

In  the  new  art  of  color,  however,  color  is  the 
basis  of  the  form,  and  hence  the  source  of  the 
aesthetic  reaction.  Therefore,  the  reaction  pos- 
sible in  this  latter  art  (other  aesthetic  values  being 
equal)  is  infinitely  more  intense  than  in  painting. 
In  fact,  the  physical  stimulation  of  color  is  often 
greater  even  than  that  of  sound.  During  the  past 
twenty-five  years  scientists  have  been  experiment- 
ing in  the  effects  of  colors  upon  human  and  animal 

[35] 


organisms;  and  their  findings — notably  those  of 
Dr.  Jacques  Loeb  of  Rockefeller  Institute,  in  the 
field  of  heliotropism — prove  conclusively  that 
color  holds  infinite  possibilities  as  a highly  active 
mechanistic  source  of  physiological  reaction. 

This  new  art,  with  color  as  its  functioning  me- 
dium and  therefore  as  the  basis  of  one’s  enjoyment 
of  it,  is,  I predict,  going  to  develop  into  what  will 
be  the  most  powerful  and  moving  source  of 
aesthetic  pleasure  the  world  has  yet  known.  But 
its  metier  will  not  be  canvas  and  pigment.  The 
more  rudimentary  problems  in  this  new  art  have 
already  been  solved;  and  even  now  it  is  divorcing 
itself  from  the  very  aspect  of  painting,  and  is  seek- 
ing a means  of  expression  which  heretofore  has 
never  been  associated  with  art-procedure.  The 
result  will  be  an  entirely  new  art,  as  distinct  from 
painting  as  is  music  or  literature. 


[36] 


IX 


Thus  far  I have  endeavored  to  show  that  so- 
called  modern,  or  modernist,  painting  is  not  an 
art  of  painting  at  all,  but  an  art  of  color,  with  im- 
pulses, functions  and  aims  which  are  quite  distinct 
from  those  of  painting.  I have  also  ventured 
the  prediction  that  this  new  art  of  color,  though 
temporarily  expressing  itself  in  the  medium  of 
painting,  will  in  time  develop  into  a source  of 
one  of  the  most  intense  and  pleasurable  aesthetic 
reactions  which  the  world  of  art  has  yet  known. 
At  present  the  art  of  color  is  definitely  limited  in 
its  means  of  projection;  but  there  are  sufficient 
indications  by  which  the  future  status  of  this  art 
may  be  determined. 

The  key  to  the  art  of  the  future  lies  in  the  ques- 
tion of  medium.  Herein  we  may  find  not  only 
an  explanation  for  the  current  misconceptions  re- 
garding it,  but  also  the  secret  of  its  growth  and 
evolution.  So-called  modern  paintings — that  is, 
pictorial  representations  of  recognizable  or  semi- 

[37] 


recognizable  subjects  constructed  according  to  the 
theories  of  the  new  researches  in  color — must  be 
done  on  large  canvases  in  order  to  be  most  effec- 
tive. Unlike  the  art  of  painting,  the  art  of  color 
— even  in  its  present  hybrid  state — demands  ex- 
pansive areas  for  adequate  projection. 

The  modern  home,  however,  is  constantly  grow- 
ing smaller;  wall-space  to-day  in  the  average 
house  is  at  a premium.  Obviously,  therefore, 
the  art  of  color  can  have  but  slight  value  as  a vital 
expression  of  the  modern  creative  instinct  as  long 
as  it  clings  to  the  medium  of  canvas  and  paint. 
Its  contact  with  the  world  would  be  too  limited, 
and  its  accessibility  too  restricted.  In  fact,  there 
is  no  future  for  it  as  painting.  The  hostility 
which  it  has  already  met,  and  its  persistently  low 
market-value,  are  traceable,  in  large  measure,  to 
its  decorative  impracticability.  The  best  and 
most  representative  modernistic  canvases  must 
eventually  go  into  museums  to  be  properly  seen 
and  appreciated.  There  is  no  incentive  in  such 
a destiny  for  the  creative  artist.  The  invention 
of  museums  was  an  outgrowth  of  man’s  primitive 
instinct  for  placing  corpses  in  a mausoleum;  and 
the  truly  vital  artist  can  find  no  inspiration  in 
decorating  a sepulchre’s  interior. 

Now  that  painting  has  lost  its  emotional  effi- 

[38] 


cacy,  a new  optical  stimulus  is  required.  TKe 
visual  aesthetic  needs  of  mankind  must  be  fed  and 
gratified.  Since  the  older  painting  no  longer 
meets  these  needs,  and  modern  houses  are  becom- 
ing too  cramped  and  congested  to  hold  pictures; 
and  since  the  art  of  color  has  no  proper  place  in  the 
home  and  is  at  present  expressing  itself  through 
a medium  which  is  both  impracticable  and  inade- 
quate: the  time  has  come  for  a fundamental 
change  in  the  very  nature  of  this  new  color-art. 
Conditions  are  inevitably  forcing  into  existence  a 
new  metier  for  its  expression  and  new  methods 
for  its  projection. 

The  most  important  indication  that  this  change 
is  imminent  lies  in  the  fact  that  no  new  modern 
art  “school”  has  risen  during  the  past  ten  years. 
From  Delacroix  to  the  outbreak  of  the  last  war 
the  history  of  so-called  modern  painting  was  a 
continuous  record  of  experimental  groups,  re- 
ferred to  as  “schools.”  The  first  one  of  any  sig- 
nificance to  be  known  by  a name  was  Impression- 
ism, although  there  had  already  been  numerous 
pioneers  whose  researches  and  theories  had  paved 
the  way  for  the  Impressionists’  experimentations 
in  light  and  vibration.  After  Monet,  Pissarro, 
Guillaumin  and  Sisley  there  followed,  in  rapid 
succession,  the  Neo-Impressionists  (or  Pointil- 

[39] 


lists),  the  Pont- A von  School,  the  Post-Impression- 
ists, the  Cubists,  the  Orphists  (or  Simultaneists), 
and  the  Synchromists.  Also,  there  were  indi- 
vidual men,  with  coteries  of  followers  and  imita- 
tors, who  escaped  categorical  designation,  but 
who  nevertheless  constituted  important  links  in 
the  chain  of  sesthetic  research — such  as  Cezanne 
and  Renoir.  (The  latter  was  for  a time  enrolled 
under  the  banner  of  Impressionism,  but  he  carried 
his  work  far  beyond  the  findings  of  that  school.) 

Each  of  these  experimental  groups  addressed 
itself  to  certain  problems  in  the  field  of  color. 
What  these  problems  were  and  what  each  school 
achieved,  need  not  concern  us  here.  Suffice  it 
to  say  that  each  group  marked  a logical  forward 
step  in  the  development  of  the  theory  and  tech- 
nique of  color.  With  the  advent  of  the  Synchro- 
mists  in  1912,  all  the  problems  of  color  that  re- 
lated to  the  painter’s  art,  were  solved.  In  my 
book,  “Modern  Painting,”  early  in  1914, 1 wrote: 

Ancient  painting  sounded  the  depths  of  composition. 
Modern  painting  has  sounded  the  depths  of  color.  Re- 
search is  at  an  end.  It  now  remains  for  artists  to  create. 
The  means  have  been  perfected : the  laws  of  composition 
have  been  laid  down.  After  Synchromism  no  more  in- 
novatory “movements,”  or  “schools,”  are  possible.  Any 
school  of  the  future  must  necessarily  be  compositional. 

[40] 


It  can  be  only  a variation  or  modification  of  the  past. 
The  methods  of  painting  may  be  complicated.  New 
forms  may  be  found.  But  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  add 
anything  to  the  means  at  hand.  The  era  of  pure 
creation  begins  with  the  present  day. 

The  activities  and  progress  of  ‘"modern  paint- 
ing” since  1914  have  substantiated  these  observa- 
tions. 


[41] 


X 


The  reason  that  the  art  of  color  has  not  pro- 
gressed more  rapidly  during  the  past  decade,  is 
attributable  to  the  fact  that  even  after  the  cul- 
mination of  technical  research  in  color,  there  per- 
sisted in  the  practitioners  of  this  new  art,  what 
might  be  called  a “medium  fixation.55  The  mod- 
ern artist  was  still  bound  by  the  mechanical 
characteristics  of  painting.  His  retention  of  can- 
vas and  pigments  was  but  a convention  of  human 
conduct  such  as  is  to  be  found  throughout  all 
human  progress.  For  example,  when  electric 
lights  were  first  invented,  and  even  after  they  be- 
came practical  utilities,  the  bulbs,  whether  single 
or  in  bracket-groups,  pointed  upwards.  Although 
a revolutionary  and  epoch-making  idea  had  been 
conceived  and  perfected,  the  simple  fact  that  en- 
closed lights  could  burn  downwards  was  entirely 
overlooked.  Gas-lights  and  all  flames  ascended; 
therefore,  the  electric  bulbs  were  instinctively 
placed  upright.  The  medium,  so  to  speak,  of  the 

[42] 


older  (or  original)  lighting  devices  persisted, 
wholly  as  a result  of  association  and  habit. 

Throughout  the  entire  history  of  inventions  and 
discoveries  we  find  this  same  curious  lack  of  intel- 
lectual plasticity  manifest  in  the  selection  of  me- 
dium. The  form  which  has  been  most  closely 
associated  with  an  idea  almost  invariably  accom- 
panies the  first  stages  of  any  new  statement  of 
that  idea.  And  since  canvas  and  paint  had  al- 
ways been  associated  with  the  art  of  visual  repre- 
sentation, this  medium  accompanied  the  first 
stages  of  the  new  color-art’s  expression. 

That  pigment  is  not  the  proper  medium  for 
color  is  at  last  being  realized.  On  every  hand 
one  sees  evidences  of  a groping  for  some  other 
vehicle  of  color-projection;  and  this  groping  is 
the  result  of  a strongly  felt  inner  need.  This 
need  did  not  assert  itself  during  the  experimental 
stages  of  color-development,  for  at  that  time  the 
new  artists  were  not  concerned  with  the  under- 
lying principles  of  aesthetics.  Their  instinct  was 
not  so  much  creative  as  scientific;  they  were  en- 
gaged in  research  rather  than  in  artistic  concep- 
tion; and  the  medium  of  painting  answered  their 
purposes.  But  when  these  researches  terminated, 
when  the  problems  of  color  were  disposed  of,  the 
exponents  of  this  new  procedure  were  left  un- 

[43] 


hampered  by  the  necessity  of  further  experimenta- 
tion. They  were  free  to  express  the  eternal  prin- 
ciples of  art  through  the  new  means.  It  was  only 
then  that  the  inadequacy  of  the  painter’s  medium 
for  creation  in  color  became  evident. 

The  gradual  elimination  of  the  recognizable  ob- 
ject from  "modern  painting” — that  is,  the  con- 
stant approach  to  pure  abstraction  of  form — 
should  have  given  a hint  that  a new  art,  entirely 
opposed  to  the  aims  of  painting,  was  in  process 
of  growth.  But  even  when  all  documentary 
representation  had  been  excluded  from  pictures, 
and  when  no  determinable  shapes  were  present — 
when,  in  fine,  a picture  became  merely  a congeries 
of  abstract  color-forms  and  linear  rhythms  com- 
pletely divorced  from  objective  reality — the 
standards  of  painting  continued  to  be  applied; 
and  the  failure  of  such  canvases  to  meet  the  older 
requirements  of  graphic  art  was  vigorously  con- 
demned. It  was  at  this  point  in  the  evolution  of 
the  art  of  color  that  the  breach  between  the 
academic  painter  and  the  color-artist  was  widest, 
and  that  mutual  recriminations  reached  their  high- 
est pitch. 

At  about  this  time  certain  of  the  modern  men 
began  to  experiment  in  new  media,  though  still 
clinging  with  one  hand,  as  it  were,  to  the  metier 

[44] 


of  painting.  Bits  of  glass,  pieces  of  newspaper, 
cotton-wool,  pasteboard,  bits  of  musical  score, 
wooden  chips,  putty,  coils  of  metal,  and  various 
other  objects,  made  their  appearance  in  the  mod- 
ern works  of  art.  There  was  an  almost  frantic 
search  for  new  textures.  In  sculpture  Archipenko 
used  glass  and  tin,  which  he  painted  over  with 
harmonic  colors.  Wire  and  imitation  hair  were 
employed  as  a medium  for  busts ; and  clay  began 
appearing  on  canvases,  like  bas-relief.  There  was 
widespread  activity  in  the  use  of  all  manner  of 
strange  and  bizarre  media,  many  of  the  results 
being  fully  as  absurd  and  ineffectual  as  the  most 
conservative  and  horrified  adherents  of  the  older 
painting  pronounced  them  to  be. 

But  here  again  the  animating  impulse  of  the 
“freak”  artists  was  lost  sight  of ; and  they  were 
judged  wholly  by  the  aspects  of  their  work.  This 
straining  after  unusual  and  unconventional  effects 
was,  at  bottom,  a sincere  attempt  to  find  a novel 
means  of  visual  expression.  It  evidenced  a vital 
need  for  a more  congenial  medium  through  which 
to  project  the  discoveries  in  the  new  art  of  color, 
and  demonstrated  conclusively  that  the  modern 
artist  instinctively  realized  the  inadequacy  of  can- 
vas and  pigments.  It  was,  indeed,  the  first  purely 
creative  activity  of  the  new  art-consciousness  after 

[45] 


the  experimental  instinct  had  been  exhausted. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  these  men  were  not  con- 
tent with  the  medium  of  painting,  and  that  their 
impulses  carried  them  away  from  the  metier  of 
graphic  art,  proved  that  they  were  not  painters, 
either  instinctively  or  intellectually. 


[46] 


XI 


What,  one  asks,  will  be  the  ultimate  medium  of 
this  new  art  of  color4?  There  can  be  little  doubt 
concerning  the  answer.  Already  the  future  of  the 
art  of  color  is  evident.  The  medium  of  this 
new  art  will  be  light,  namely : color  in  its  purest, 
most  intense  form,  and  with  determinable  vibra- 
tions. 

That  light  is  the  logical  means  for  the  expres- 
sion of  color  is  obvious,  for  color  is  light;  and  only 
through  light  (that  is:  the  heliotropic  aspect  of 
color)  can  color  be  made  to  function  most  effec- 
tively. Pigments  are  merely  colors  by  proxy, 
without  purity,  and  low  in  vibration.  The  ab- 
sorption and  refraction  process  which  is  present 
in  all  pigmental  colors,  greatly  reduces  their  bril- 
liancy and  neutralizes  their  densities  and  trans- 
parencies. Furthermore,  pigments  are  constantly 
at  the  mercy  of  the  light  under  which  they  are  per- 
ceived, and  they  continually  alter  and  shift — not 
only  individually  but  in  relation  to  one  another — 

[ 47] 


under  every  slight  atmospheric  variation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  color  (or  vibration)  of  light 
can  be  rendered  fixed  and  absolute.  Light,  in 
fact,  is  the  only  medium  which  answers  all  the 
requirements  of  the  color-artist. 

So  inevitable  was  this  medium  that  one  may 
wonder  why  light  did  not  at  once  suggest  itself 
to  the  artist.  The  answer  is  that  the  physical  and 
mechanical  difficulties  attaching  to  creative  ex- 
pression through  light,  are  tremendous.  The  sci- 
ence of  color  itself  has  only  begun  to  be  probed. 
Then  again,  the  proper  method  of  expressing  form 
through  light  had  to  be  determined,  and  the  in- 
struments for  its  attainment  invented. 

The  first  indications  of  this  new  art  of  color  as 
expressed  through  light,  are  the  various  “color- 
organs”  and  color-projecting  machines  which  have 
come  into  existence  during  the  past  few  years. 
Wallace-Rimington’s  color-organ  was  the  first  to 
exert  any  potent  influence.  But  this  machine  was 
constructed  before  the  artist  had  completed  his 
researches  in  color-theory,  and  not  only  is  Wal- 
lace-Rimington’s chromatic  scale  incorrect,  but 
his  types  of  form  are  too  limited  for  anything 
approaching  sesthetic  composition.  Scriabine’s 
attempt  at  combining  color-lights  with  music  was 
abortive  and  futile,  and  revealed  a complete  igno- 

[48] 


ranee  of  the  color  researches  of  the  modern  paint- 
ers. Thomas  Wilfred’s  color-organ  (the  “clavi- 
lux”) — the  latest  and  most  plastic  of  such  instru- 
ments— is  a decided  advance  over  any  other  color- 
machine;  but  it,  too,  is  lacking  in  sesthetic  value, 
and  is  woefully  restricted  in  the  control  of  both 
forms  and  colors.  Numerous  other  like  devices 
have  been  conceived,  but  so  far  without  appre- 
ciable artistic  results. 

The  sesthetic  failure  of  these  instruments  does 
not,  at  the  present  time,  matter.  By  the  mere 
projection  of  mobile  colored  lights  they  have 
proved  the  value — and,  indeed,  the  inevitability 
— of  this  medium  for  the  new  art  of  color;  and, 
even  in  their  present  crude  form,  they  are  not  so 
inherently  inadequate  a medium  as  is  oil  paint. 
They  have  demonstrated  the  intensity  of  the  phys- 
ical reaction  to  color — the  thing  for  which  the 
modern  artist  has  been  striving.  Also,  they  have 
shown  that  plastic  color-forms  are  possible  by  the 
use  of  light;  and  they  have  done  away  with  the 
representative  object  which  hampered  and  limited 
the  color-artist  so  long  as  he  was  necessitated  to 
confine  himself  to  the  medium  of  painting.  The 
color-organ,  in  fact,  is  the  logical  development 
of  all  the  modern  researches  in  the  art  of  color. 
It  is  the  only  means  whereby  pure  color-forms  may 

[49] 


be  significantly  projected;  and  this  is  precisely  the 
goal  towards  which  every  “modern  painter”  has 
been  struggling  for  over  a century. 

The  Synchromists  were  the  first  “school  of 
painting”  to  foresee  this  future  of  the  color-art. 
Also,  they  were  the  only  modern  school  which  was 
not  antagonistic  to  the  older  painting.  Many  of 
their  canvases  were  frank  restatements,  in  color, 
of  masterpieces  by  Rubens  and  Michelangelo. 
And  it  is  a significant  fact  that  the  leading  ex- 
ponent of  Synchromism  has  long  since  discarded 
pigments  and  canvas,  and  for  years  has  been  de- 
voting his  energies  towards  the  achievement  of  a 
color-instrument  which  can  be  used  to  produce 
color-forms  as  the  orchestra  is  now  used  to  pro- 
duce sound-forms. 


[50] 


XII 


The  color-instrument  of  the  future  will  not 
merely  throw  pretty  squares,  circles,  coils,  and 
volutes  of  colored  light  on  a screen,  but  will  be 
able  to  record  the  artist’s  moods,  desires  and  emo- 
tions along  any  visually  formal  sesthetic  line. 
Only  when  such  an  instrument  has  been  perfected 
can  the  modern  artist’s  creative  conceptions  be 
properly  expressed.  With  the  completion  of  this 
new  medium  the  art  of  color  will  have  entirely 
dissociated  itself  from  the  art  of  painting,  not 
only  in  impulse  and  conception,  but  in  the  world’s 
attitude  towards  it. 

However,  there  is  one  point  which  must  not  be 
overlooked.  The  principles  of  form  and  organ- 
ization which  animate  all  great  painting,  and 
which  are  to  be  found  in  every  great  masterpiece 
of  graphic  art,  are  the  identical  principles  on 
which  the  new  art  of  color  will  be  founded.  For 
these  principles  are  the  same  in  all  arts.  They 
constitute  the  rationale  of  sesthetics,  and  are  based 

[51] 


on  the  deepest  physiological  and  intellectual 
needs  of  mankind.  The  fundamental  relationship 
which  has  always  existed  between  the  various  arts, 
will  also  exist  between  the  older  arts  and  the  new 
art  of  color. 

The  canons  of  art  formulated  by  Hsieh  Ho  in 
the  fifth  century,  as  recorded  by  Fenollosa,  em- 
body not  only  the  philosophy  of  Chinese  art,  but 
that  of  all  great  art.  They  are : 

(1)  Rhythmic  vitality:  the  life-movement  of 
the  spirit  through  the  rhythm  of  things. 

(2)  Organic  structure:  the  creative  spirit  in- 
carnating itself  in  a pictorial  conception. 

(3)  Conformity  with  nature.  (We  must  un- 
derstand these  words  in  the  Chinese  sense:  Na- 

ture is  the  ever-flowing,  ever-producing,  ever- 
manifesting  life  about  and  in  us;  really  more  the 
inner  world  than  the  mere  external  world  of 
forms.  Conformity  means — conformity;  not 
just  photographic  accuracy,  as  we  would  be  apt 
at  first  to  interpret  it  according  to  Western  objects 
in  art.) 

(4)  Arrangement:  which  again  means  not 
merely  sensuously  beautiful  arrangement,  but  one 
that  recognizes  the  ever-living  mission  of  painting 
to  tell  that  Nature  provides  the  experiences  of  the 
soul,  and  that  the  Superior  World,  the  Inner  Dh 

[52] 


vine  Meaning,  is  the  inspiration  and  the  Model  of 
the  other. 

(5)  Transmission  of  classic  models.  (This 
canon  proves  a long  previous  chain  and  inherit- 
ance of  artistic  tradition,  the  antetype  of  what 
we  have  left.) 

These  canons,  or  principles,  were  stated  in 
Chinese  art  through  line — line  in  the  aesthetic 
sense  of  visualized  directional  forces,  not  in  the 
sense  of  mere  outline,  or  delimitation  of  forms; 
and  these  same  principles  which  the  great  Chinese 
artists  of  old  stated  by  means  of  line,  the  expo- 
nents of  this  new  art  of  the  future  will  strive  to 
state  by  means  of  color.  The  art  of  color  will 
be  a new  art  only  in  medium;  and  until  the  day 
comes  when  an  artist  is  great  enough  to  express  the 
profound  form  of  a Rubens,  or  a Michelangelo,  or 
a Beethoven,  through  this  modern  medium  of 
light,  the  art  of  color  will  remain  inferior  to  the 
other  arts.  That  day  may  not  come  for  many 
decades — perhaps  for  a century.  But  this  fact 
should  in  nowise  constitute  a stricture  against 
the  art  of  color. 

Herein,  then,  lies  what  I believe  to  be  the 
future  of  the  art  of  color — that  art  which  has  er- 
roneously been  regarded  as  an  abortive  manifesta- 
tion of  painting,  and  condemned  accordingly. 

[53] 


As  for  the  future  of  painting:  we  shall  con- 
tinue to  have  graphic  art  as  in  the  past,  with  its 
schools  and  academies,  its  awards  and  official 
salons , and  its  great  army  of  practitioners.  There 
will  always  be  the  art  of  painting,  just  as  there 
will  always  be  the  art  of  sculpture,  despite  the 
fact  the  one  culminated  aesthetically  in  Rubens, 
and  the  other  in  Michelangelo.  Painting  will 
continue  to  serve  a decorative  and  representa- 
tional purpose.  But  the  art  of  color  will  be  for 
occasional  reaction  and  stimulation,  like  sym- 
phony concerts  and  the  drama. 

Those  “modern  painters5’  who  predict  that  their 
art  will  be  the  one  visual  art  of  the  future,  and 
that  the  older  painting  will  soon  die  out,  are  as 
preposterously  wrong  as  the  exponents  of  aca- 
demic art  who  predict  that  “modern  painting55  is 
but  a flash  in  the  pan,  which  will  soon  pass  away 
and  leave  the  older  painting  supreme.  Both  are 
narrow  partisans,  blind  to  the  true  significance  of 
the  aesthetic  forces  at  work  in  the  world  to-day. 


[54] 


BY  WILLARD  HUNTINGTON  WRIGHT 


MODERN  PAINTING 
Its  Tendency  and  Meaning 

Mr.  Wright  has  written  the  standard  book  on  the  history 
and  quality  of  modern  art. — IVilliam  Stanley  Braithwaite,  in 
the  Boston  Transcript. 

“Modern  Painting”  is  the  best  current  work  upon  the  genesis 
and  development  of  the  modern  movement. — Dr.  Christian 
Brinton,  in  the  International  Studio. 

“Modern  Painting”  is  a solid,  sincere  and  brilliant  book; 
the  best  I have  read  thus  far  in  English. — James  Huneker. 


THE  CREATIVE  WILL 
Studies  in  the  Philosophy  and  Syntax  of  ^Esthetics 

Mr.  Wright  has  put  down  well-nigh  everything  a modern 
artist  or  art-lover  needs  for  his  mental  equipment. — Albrecht 
Montgelas , LL.D.,  in  the  Chicago  Examiner. 

It  is  the  first  book  of  aesthetics  to  come  out  of  America,  and 
it  establishes  our  first  link  with  creative  European  culture. — 
Los  Angeles  Times. 

Mr.  Wright  is  America’s  first  profound  aesthetician. — The 
Forum. 


THE  MAN  OF  PROMISE 

The  best  American  novel  I ever  read.  It  i9  consummate 
art  . . . as  tragic  as  Sophocles’  “CEdipus  Rex,”  as  benev- 
olently ironical  as  Anatole  France’s  “The  Gods  Are  Athirst,” 
as  artistic  as  the  best  of  Turgenev. — Burton  Rascoe  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune. 

A novel  which  belongs  on  conspicuous  shelves  alongside  of 
Flaubert,  Turgenev,  Dostoevsky,  Sudermann,  George  Moore, 
and  Dreiser. — Newton  A.  Fuessle,  in  the  Mirror. 


BY  WILLARD  HUNTINGTON  WRIGHT 


WHAT  NIETZSCHE  TAUGHT 

Offers  a better  and  truer  report  of  Nietzsche’s  ideas  than 
any  other  book  either  in  English  or  German. — H.  L.  Mencken, 
in  the  Baltimore  Evening  Sun. 

An  excellent  survey  of  the  life  and  philosophy  of  Nietzsche. 
The  best  summary  of  Nietzsche  that  has  yet  appeared  in  Eng- 
lish.— Springfield  Republican. 


MISINFORMING  A NATION 

A critical  examination  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  in 
relation  to  its  effect  on  the  development  of  a national  self-con- 
sciousness. 

Mr.  Wright  proves  once  more  that  he  is  one  of  the  clearest, 
best  informed,  wittiest  and  most  constructive  of  our  critics. — 
Chicago  Examiner. 


THE  GREAT  MODERN  FRENCH  STORIES 

In  no  other  single  volume  in  English  is  there  a more  satis- 
factory means  of  tracing  the  main  currents  of  French  fiction. — 
The  Bellman. 

The  only  book  of  its  kind,  supplying  accurate  information 
concerning  every  step  in  the  development  of  modern  Frenoh 
fiction. — Chicago  Nevus. 


EUROPE  AFTER  8:15 

A light-hearted  and  informative  book  on  the  night  life  ofi 
the  principal  European  capitals.  (Written  in  collaboration 
with  H.  L.  Mencken  and  George  Jean  Nathan.) 


INFORMING  A NATION 

A criticism  of  the  New  International  Encyclopedia,  and  a 
plea  for  the  support  of  American  intellectual  institutions. 


GETTY  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE 


3 3125  01214  3315 

41 


